On Sept. 11, scores of men with automatic weapons and RPGs launched a night assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and set the building ablaze. Using mortars, they launched a collateral attack on a safe house, killing two more Americans, as other U.S. agents fled to the airport.

On Sept. 14, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the attack came out of a spontaneous protest caused by an anti-Muslim video on YouTube.

John I'm glad you have posted this piece, sad that none have replied. Allow me.

Obviously I've not posted in some time, been very busy with everyday life. However this topic and how it's been delivered, requires a response, and then a follow up question. Hope you can understand the severity of what I'm about to point out.

First off......there is no US Embassy in Benghazi. First reported by the MSM. Second as people started pointing this out and asking questions.....it got renamed to a Consulate.

Yet not that either....so it was then an Outpost.......then something else, then finally an Arts Center or something of the like...

So John I must ask.......Do you know that there is no movie? There never was.....It was a trailer for a movie that doesn't exist......taken from one that does, only carries a different name..so actually no Muslim movie at all... I can dig that all up if ANYONE would take the time to learn about what really happened.

No movies means WHAT.....Yes there were no riots.....SOOOOOOOOOO How did that all come to be shown on American TV Outlets?

What is the real truth here? I know some folks who nailed it from the very beginning.....THEY NAME NAMES.........How is was done, and who trained them...

Do you know the pastor down in Florida who likes to burn Korans?????????????? HE'S CIA..................Connected to how this story really played out.

Yes Terry Jones the pastor is said to be CIA....Said so by folks who would know, get paid to know...

John..........Did you know that Jones sent a mass e-mail to nearly 1/2 million people tipping them off to the TRAILER made from the none existing Movie?

Tell me how he did that? Surely you must know how much effort--not to mention cash and connection---such a thing would take....I'm talking production and distribution on that kind of scale.

Let's set the political views aside and get to the truth. Can we do that? Why? Simple, this is too important to play games with..

Let me show you.

Secretary Clinton gave the first press conference about this incident on the 11th....I can and will, link to the time stamp...you can look it over top to bottom.

Guess what happened 2 minutes later? Yeah Mitt Romney replied with a statement about the incident......Said his entire team had agreed with his take on the event.

Okay now I know this is going to be lost on the majority of people who care to read this post, but I'll ask anyway. How in hell is that possible? To respond in 2 minutes time to what was then breaking news?

I think you know, but do you have the COURAGE to own up to it?

This is dirty and it's right in plain sight and NEEDS to be understood.

HERE: Do yourself a favor and watch the video contained within this link:

I dunno Cole; maybe the Romney campaign has state of the art computer network capabilities and happened to be 'plugged in' when Secretary Clinton made those statements. It would explain their immediate '2 minute' response and it's not entirely out of the realm of possiblity.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

Looks like that's the way this will all play out. I have to wonder though, what will happen should it all come out just like that or worse? Will Obama invoke executive privilege again? Have a few lower-downs say "we're sorry" and step down with no real consequences?

The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.

Lots of wind ( as usual ) and no actual answers. The actual truth is in the link, all you have to do is read the thing...

Pat B wrote is piece 16 Oct was it? The guys at VT wrote theirs on 12 Sept, or there abouts....and yeah....it sounds crazy, made up, even fake.............only as usual, pans out in the end.

Someone is playing Obama, making him and the Admin look silly. Oh and no coincidence that it just so happens to be near to election time.

No they responded in 2 mins because they knew in advance, that means they had the response ready to go... I'm not saying that....but those in the intel field are...and saying it very loudly and very clearly.. They knew there was going to be a hit on the " outpost " You can deny it all you want...........but the evidence is clear, very clear.

The info you're passing off as fact is nothing more than CIA related misinfo. This come straight from those at the VT Who actually work real live intel jobs.So take it up with them, I'm simply the messenger.

Further: Neither Obama or Clinton KNOW JACK about what really happened, only what they've been told....My take is that if they do know then they are simply falling of the sword................but personally I doubt that's the case.

Security is a mis-direct....Didn't you bother to read the article you posted. How many men ( all US trained by the way ) did you know this my friend? RPG's was it..........and what all else.....So what kind of security are you referring to? The kind that make's for a good whitewashing job, or would you really care to understand the whole picture?

Just keep thinking the word SEAL and the associated psyop should become clear.

Anyway.....Your LA Times did a piece on Romney and his BAIN CAPITAL BS back in the summer.....they stopped short of calling him a criminal but the intent of the article is very clear. What he's engaging in as a business practice as associated with BAIN..........Is more than likely illegal.

The sad aspect of this is that it's all right there for anyone to read and understand, yet it appears that people are either to stupid to grasp it, or simply don't care if this ilk somehow manages to win the White House job.

It's been said that it's already bought, to the tune of more than 1 billion US Bucks. Maybe that explains why Obama has a wide margin in early voting tally, only to trail by 6 pts in the bogus National polls....

Cole_Trickle wrote:Secretary Clinton gave the first press conference about this incident on the 11th....I can and will, link to the time stamp...you can look it over top to bottom.

Guess what happened 2 minutes later? Yeah Mitt Romney replied with a statement about the incident......Said his entire team had agreed with his take on the event.

Okay now I know this is going to be lost on the majority of people who care to read this post, but I'll ask anyway. How in hell is that possible? To respond in 2 minutes time to what was then breaking news?

Because the guy tours the country with a press core. That's how it's possible. He is on the campaign trail, ya know. A-ha! Now I see that the whole campaigning with a press core is just an elaborate plot to cover his tracks. Somehow, Mitt must've made some secret phone calls while on the can to covert military operatives to carry out these attacks on U.S. assets and diplomats! It's the perfect cover! I bet celebrities and politicians who make tweets a minute or so after a press conference are all Al-Qaeda operatives too! OMG!!

I was going to ask where you come up with this crap but then I followed your link.

The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.

I don't mind sites like the one Cole listed or Alex Jones. Hell, I check them out too but some people treat every article and video like it's the gospel and swallow it lock, stock and barrel. There's only one thing that can compare in absurdity to the Far Left and that is the Far Right. Admittedly though, the Far Left scares me more.

The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.

The only nut job here is you, Cole. That's what you wackos do, flip out and name call when someone applies a common sense explanation to your sensationalist, paranoid rhetoric. You social outcasts just don't get it. Being an arrogant prick, telling everyone else they're stupid as a pretext to spouting your tinfoil hat rhetoric isn't going to win any hearts and minds to your way of thinking. Your lack of evidence as evidence approach is your undoing, every single time. Like the way you nut jobs love linking to deleted articles, threads and posts and then claiming it must be a shadow government conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Your little secret agent role-playing sites are adorable, in a creepy forty-five year old basement dweller sort of way. The biggest thing that seems to be lost on you people is that if your articles and presented evidence could stand on their own, you wouldn't need to insult everyone for not agreeing with them before or after having read them. You wouldn't need to say, "If you don't agree with what I'm about to say, you're stupid and a traitor and a terrorist!!!!" and then link your horrible article with not a shred of evidence to support your claim(s). Paraphrasing is not evidence, by the way. Something rath and The Joker would do well to grasp as well.

The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.

7 hrs ago this is.........and at first glance judging by the headline it appears that the CIA sent early intel to the White House and the White House simply ignored it....right....is this the indication set in motion by the caption?

Yeah only you need to read it..........where you'll find the actual events further into the piece.

The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.

Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault."

Yeah something beginning to smell..........no wonder people don;t want to give their names.

The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."

And as to my original question about Romney and WHAT HE KNEW and WHEN he knew it..

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress.

"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. "It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why ... though we don't want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions" after such events in the future.

"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

"How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don't know," he said. "That raises suspicions that there was political motivation."

IT Should raise suspicion and someone has evidently decided to screw the screwers......a good first step.

On the 12th is more than likely when the VT received their intel....it looks as if someone failed to pass that along up the chain....Which is what this writer is pointing out in an instructed subtle way.... Some good things beginning to come to light here.

Hey Mitt knew ahead of time ( so it seems ) yet now as the sh*t starts hitting fan.......winds of change begin to blow......this smells like a huge backfire to me.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus' closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that an unruly mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA's early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.

Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

Not sure about being pre-planned but they were in contact with a group before, during, and most likely after the attack......maybe just making plans for dinner afterword, or a beer..

Oh did you catch it....." enclave "

They told em but they didn't tell em, broke protocol, ah but hey don't use my name because I'm not authorized.. lol

Contact Us.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.